Lanny Davis and the Purple Revolution

What the:

Davis, a longtime friend of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), framed the
venture as rooted in his commitment to moderation. “In today’s
Washington, there is usually no ‘Red’ solution or ‘Blue’ solution but
almost always the best solution is a ‘purple’ or bipartisan solution,”
he said.

Why, precisely? This is why I get to the point of thinking most self-identified moderates are basically pussies who cannot commit. Even if you are moderate on one issue or another, or you vote Dem sometimes or Republican others depending on which candidate can breathe with his mouth closed, if you spend all your time wanking about how both parties suck and what we need is some new party, generally you haven’t been paying attention.

Plus you think there’s something morally superior about holding yourself above those filthy things known as “politics” and “giving enough of a damn about issues to get upset and raise your voice,” and declaring such in a room full of people. One thing drives me absolutely wild about the Lieberman/Davis/Whoever position that some milquetoast middle way is always better, is they can never articulate why that is with any specific examples.

What are the issues on which mixtures of Republican and Democratic positions would be preferable to either? I mean, we are basically at the point where the opposition party has gone so batshit as to have abdicated its responsibilities to offer any compromises it will actually support in legislative form, so on abortion, immigration, health care, finance reform, national defense, you’ve got a choice between the people who want to do something and the guy in the corner rocking back and forth talking to himself about how the Easter Bunny and G. Gordon Liddy are out to get him.

A.

6 thoughts on “Lanny Davis and the Purple Revolution

  1. somethingblue says:

    Or as John Cole puts it: “I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.”

  2. For some reason I thought Davis had joined Prince’s band.
    –––
    The “moderate” position, as defined by the Broderite crowd, is both supportive of the status quo and right-leaning; i.e, when the Democrats were in the minority they cried, why can’t the Democrats compromise!? And with the Democrats in the majority they cry, Why can’t the Democrats compromise!?
    They hate politics and they hate democracy. They simply want some strong figure to tell them everything is all right.
    .

  3. Robert Earle says:

    Or as Stephen Colbert said “Hey oscillating fans! Left or right? Pick a side! We’re at war!”

  4. pansypoo says:

    moderation is fine, but if you need to replace a bridge, weight limits can only do so much. 30 years of reagnism got us here and we need a NEW direction.

  5. Dan says:

    Maybe there was a golden age of bipartisanship for our country in some dim distant past, though it definitely wasn’t atthe beginning or themiddle or any time in the last century a Democratic presidenthas tried to do adamn thing.
    People who whine about how good things used to be are most likely thinking of that wonderful, cooperative time between when Hinckley tried to assassinate Reagan (thereby making Congressional Democrats eager to pass some of the Gipper’s priorities as a show of support for the man) and the first time Reaganraised taxes. So there’s your golden age: March 30, 1981 – July 18, 1984. The rest of the time it’s been pretty messy.
    Those who blather about all of us getting along aren’t weak kneed or hopeless idealists, theyaren’t that bright. A bare minimum knowledge of our history and current events should inform all but the dimmest bulbs that more often than not our political discourse has tended to cover irreconcilable views of how our government should work. If you’ve been paying attention there’s no reason to be in the middle.

  6. hoppy says:

    There is no middle between the Democrats and the Repubs. The Democrats want to accomplish something. The Repubs want Obama to fail at everything. Anything short of Obama utterly failing is too far to the left to get even one Repub vote in the Senate. I’m ticked that this isn’t the lead story in every days news. I’ve been around long enough to know that today’s Repub Party is utterly unique. No other party has ever limited their goals to just making sure the President is a failure. And, they brag on that being their goal.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: